Frank commentary from an unretired call girl

They Still Don’t Get It

It is the true believer’s ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled…constancy. He cannot be…baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. — Eric Hoffer

On several occasions I’ve mentioned Maier’s Law, “If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.” But when the facts cannot be disposed of because they’re too well-known, the true believer must indulge in complex mental gymnastics which tend to make him look like a complete idiot to anyone unencumbered by the flawed theory. One such unsupportable theory is that prostitution is a “crime” (in a real sense rather than just by arbitrary definition) and that prostitutes are “criminals”. No other major Western nation but the US defines prostitution itself as a crime (though many define various ancillary actions as such), every methodologically-sound study ever done demonstrates that decriminalization virtually eliminates what cops are pleased to call “associated crimes”, and even the vast majority of prohibitionists have shifted to the more-easily-defensible “victimization” model. But to a dyed-in-the-wool lawhead, anyone defined as a criminal must actually be a criminal, just as anyone defined as a “child” must actually be the equivalent of a four-year-old in a real moral and neurological sense (until he commits a “crime”, at which point he instantly transforms into an adult criminal and is treated as such). And so lawhead cops (and their journalist henchmen) must come up with elaborate and ludicrous explanations as to why “prostitution is not a victimless crime” (the Prohibitionist Creed). I presented one rather amusing example one year ago today, and though today’s example isn’t at all funny its descent into tautology is illustrative of the inevitable result of attempts to defend the indefensible. This comes from the Omaha (Nebraska) World-Herald and is encumbered by the pompous title “Omaha Prostitute Speaks Out”:

…Prostitutes don’t have to stand out on the street corner anymore, lean into a car window and negotiate a deal for sex in exchange for money. That’s what the Internet is for, said Melissa Sykes, 23, who is serving time in the Douglas County Jail for prostitution. Like any criminal enterprise, prostitution has evolved. Sykes said the new wave of prostitutes can be self-employed. They post an ad on the Web and just wait for a call. It’s a system that worked for Sykes for about a year, until Wednesday, when she got arrested by an undercover Omaha police officer.

Regular readers are of course familiar with the popular but astonishingly ignorant belief that before the internet, all whores were streetwalkers. But reporter Sam Womack’s ignorance goes even beyond that; I daresay he has never read as much as a single word on the history of prostitution, or he wouldn’t claim that self-employment – the norm in the trade since its earliest beginnings in the mists of prehistory – was some sort of recent innovation. Though he doesn’t say it, the statement carries the reek of the “pimps and hos” myth. But the most telling phrase here is “like any criminal enterprise.” I’m sure Womack isn’t such a fool that he doesn’t understand that businesses use the internet to a far greater extent than any “criminal enterprise” does; he’s just struggling to force Sykes’ story into the “crime” narrative.

City Prosecutor Marty Conboy said Sykes is one of more than 50 people charged with prostitution and solicitation this year. He said the recent crackdown on sex for money in Omaha is part of a larger FBI investigation into human trafficking…but the solicitation and “john” arrests are also crucial. “It’s important to deter the crime, to remind them it is illegal and people are watching. It’s like putting up radar on a busy street,” he said.

It’s obvious that Conboy doesn’t recognize the moral bankruptcy of his statement (or at least hopes we won’t). He claims prostitutes are the “victims” of “traffickers”, but says they need to be arrested as a “deterrent”; that’s like claiming that arresting robbery victims will deter theft. Conboy clearly isn’t stupid; in the next paragraph he states that “while there continues to be a relationship among street prostitution, violence and drug abuse, the same can’t be said for online solicitation…women arrested say they chose this path for economic reasons.” His is the typical moral retardation of the prosecutor, which holds conformity to completely arbitrary laws above real people’s economic survival.

It’s after Conboy’s statement that the story gets most interesting; Womack goes into detail about how and why Sykes became a hooker:

Sykes, a single woman with a 5-year-old son, said she was working at a mall in Portland, Ore., making barely more than enough for gas money. She has her high school diploma and took a few college courses, but lost her financial aid last year…[she] knew a few girls in the sex business and decided to give it a try. Her son remained in Oregon with family…[while she] traveled from city to city…[charging] $120 for 30 minutes and $180 for an hour — definitely more than her mall job paid…

Yet even after hearing this story, Womack doesn’t get it; he doesn’t recognize that Conboy’s whining “the women who move from town to town make enforcing the law difficult” conflicts with his earlier claims about deterring “human traffickers”, nor does it arouse his suspicion that women smart enough to use language which “isn’t explicit enough to bring a criminal charge” in ads suddenly become stupid enough to use such language in person. He apparently went back to the office from the jailhouse, made no attempt whatsoever at further investigation, ignored the clear absurdity of classing a young mother as a “criminal” for asking to be paid a living wage for a service that would have been totally legal if she had done it for free, and typed “the law is the law”. But it’s not Maier’s Law; he hasn’t even bothered to dispense with the facts because he is too deeply invested in lawheadedness to recognize the glaring contradiction.

It means abandoning common sense and adopting the flawed logic of the organization. I have to admit – when I was in the Navy working on manpower – i allowed myself to fall victim to this and I should have never allowed it, since I was NOT an administrator but a product of many years in the fleet doing the REAL job and I knew better.

But, I did buy into what some Admirals preached to me – and when I evangelized the same to the guys in the fleet they accused me of smoking dope. It really comes from a part of you that wants to do better – and improve things. But it also comes from vanity that you get caught up in.

I was cured of this when I went back out to the fleet, tried the things I had “preached” while in manpower – and saw them utterly fail.

Do you think that maybe the term “Human Trafficking” is just an attempt to re-label prostitution in a more “inflammatory” manner? One that is more likely to re-awaken the “give-a-shit” factor in Mr and Mrs John Q?

I keep seeing it being used to describe things that have really nothing to do with trafficking.

These prosecutors and cops really aren’t men. Seriously, they’re using a lot of resources to entrap people on the internet while they COULD be out there chasing violent criminals. Of course – that would entail them actually risking their lives in a worthy endeavor. This is the cowardice in the whole affair.

Remember when Clinton said he was going to put 1,000 new cops on the streets of America?

Do you think that maybe the term “Human Trafficking” is just an attempt to re-label prostitution in a more “inflammatory” manner? One that is more likely to re-awaken the “give-a-shit” factor in Mr and Mrs John Q?

I personally think so. That term serves a double function in prostitution discourse: it re-awakens, as you call it: the “give-a-shit” factor in the average person; it also, and I think more importantly, silences and demonizes anyone who comes out in support of prostitution, especially sex worker rights’ activists. The prohibitionists who have applied that term as well as sex trafficking to what is actually sex work through and through know that us activists are out here and do not want us to be given an equal seat at the table with the lawheads and other politically important people. Denying us our seat ensures our voices will stay at the fringes and should someone (John and Jane Average) catch a whiff of us, they will “appropriately” (according to prohibitionists) say, “But that’s horrible!”

It absolutely is; here’s what Swanee Hunt’s group “Demand Abolition” says about the matter in its “Nation Strategy“:

Framing the Campaign’s key target as sexual slavery might garner more support and less resistance, while framing the Campaign as combating prostitution may be less likely to mobilize similar levels of support and to stimulate stronger opposition.

These days, the only women who are street walkers are those too disorganized, by drug habits, abject poverty, or mental illness to work for a service or advertise on the internet. Or they are casual prostitutes, not as a full time job, but as additional income when needed.

It’s been that way for a long time. Seriously, I only did street dates when I was totally broke, as a teenager. (Nicholas Kristoff, where were you then? You could have come along and paid me to go in, and I would have done so.)

The street isn’t where the money is, either. And the chance of arrest is higher there.

More cops equals more crime. Seriously. You hire a cop, he has to justify his salary. So it’s there’s not enough crime, he has to find some, or imagine some.

Prostitution has existed as long as human culture, and the idea that any law is going to eradicate it is as silly as pretending a law against flooding will end floods.

I totally agree. I’ve compared cops to the human immune system: it’s being demonstrated repeatedly that the reason so many kids nowadays are allergic to peanuts, gluten and other things literally nobody was allergic to when we were children is that they are imprisoned inside by overprotective parents and their bodies aren’t exposed to the bacteria and contaminants in dirt. Without a real enemy to fight, the body finds something to fight…and it’s always something harmless or benevolent. Cops are no different; when there are too many cops they find something to do, and it’s always attacking harmless or productive citizens.

I love this analogy, but I wonder if the problem really is an overabundance of cops. In the 90s New York City had a lot of success in reducing their violent crime rate, at least in part by expanding the size of their force considerably.

On the other hand, I doubt you could give Ronal Serpas any amount of manpower that would magically improve the quality of NOPD.

They claim it was due to more cops, but the truth is different; for reasons explained in Freakonomics, the number of kids born into the sort of circumstances that often result in lives of crime were dropping for almost two decades before NYC started hiring all those extra cops (who are now the direct cause of most “crime” in the city).

I’ve never read Freakonomics, but I’ve gathered secondhand that the authors argue Roe v Wade was responsible for an entire cohort of unwanted, crime-prone kids who simply weren’t born. Steven Pinker looked at the numbers in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature, and he wasn’t convinced – but honestly, my knowledge of statistics is so limited, I’m not qualified to have an opinion.

(who are now the direct cause of most “crime” in the city)

Now there’s a bold theory, Maggie. 🙂 But I’ve read enough Radley Balko that I can see your point.

Well, I don’t mean they directly commit the crimes, though there’s plenty of that as well; rather, what I mean is that they generate statistics by falsely accusing people of minor crimes that they didn’t actually commit, or else creating those crimes by their own actions. For example, possession of a small amount of marijuana isn’t criminal in New York, but “publicly displaying” it is. So cops stop people they suspect might have weed and force them to turn out their pockets, which results in “public display” they can be arrested for. In other words, NO CRIME EXISTED until the cops’ own actions created it.

One of the more interesting theories about the decline of crime is that it results from the outlawing of lead in gasoline, paint, etc. The brain damage done by lead is not always obvious and the use of lead and the lowering crime rate have pretty much marched in lock step. One researcher claims to be able to track this on a block-by-block level.

So one idea is that crime rates dropped because a government restriction was taken away (OK, you can have an abortion) while another is that crime rates dropped because a government restriction was added (no, you can’t use all that lead).

You can probably determine a person’s politics by which idea that latch on to.

Drugs are the biggest cause of crime in NOLA and, I normally don’t like George Will because he’s a pompous ass … but he wrote a pretty good article with a good argument for legalizing hard drugs. This message is starting to sink into people – you can put the bad guys out of business by just legalizing.

however long theese laws exist the more people like him will spend time chasing people who harm noone and make life difficult for them,but its not surprising that he thinks his way,most cops ive met have similar mindset. but what baffles me is that some former prostitutes actually advocate for such laws ,if not for full criminalization,then the swedish model.they say they have never met a happy prostitute or good punter not even in escorting and attack the girls who state they are happy in
internet blogs for being liars.thing is while i beleive that they were miserable and suffer from ptsd as they say,why dont they realise that criminalising both parts or just the clients makes things worse,more unsafe etc. for the girls?its proven that the swedish model does so.i just think is hard for the laws to change,when the lawmakers can say that they make them in order to protect theese valnurable women and they have their consent in doing so.

It’s the same in a lot of “unusual” occupations. You can point to any number of professional football players, or wrestlers, or damn – even actors and actresses (Ashley Judd comes to mind) … who bitch and moan and INFLATE AND INVENT DAMAGE caused by the realities of the occupation they so freely entered into and RECEIVED PAYMENT from for so many years.

what percentage of women do you estimate are ok with being prostitutes and even enjoy their work?i have come by happy hookers in internet blogs but i also often read in interviews with prostitutes that they have to leave their body to do the work and while i understand getting bored(happens a lot to us psos)i couldnt imagine doing a job where id need to disassociate myself completely to prevent emotional damage.

It all depends on the level; escorts tend to be happier than brothel workers, who are happier than streetwalkers. I quoted a lot of statistics (with links) in “Out of Context“, which should give you a reasonable answer.

Maggie do you personally think its possible for a upscale escort to completely loathe their profession? I cannot really see that unless a horrible client has damaged them so much, and caused them to feel like that.

I can’t even think of any upscale providers who had bad reviews in reference to their attitude……..if they do get a bad review its normally due to miscommunication/ not being able to connect well with the client.

But going back to the main point, its the “bad apples” in the profession that put their negativity on other people and make you wonder why they are doing it in the first place.

I think I was happy enough doing it. About leaving your body, at least for me that was never exactly true. It was always more like a three way mind split. Part of my mind was all on the client, monitoring his ever move and reaction so I could match and anticipate. Another third (and maybe this came from porn) was standing back, monitoring the whole scene, how it looked, how things were going. The remaining third was locked away, it was what kept me sane, it was the part that no client got.

Is there any evidence about psychological types and prostitution? Are the successful/happy/balanced ones extroverts, for example? (I would guess that they were/are, but then there’s so much opinion and so little fact around.)

I would not necessarily say that. Like any other profession in society, I don’t think being successful increases chances of a person being extroverted. I think you could still be introverted and vice versa for prostitutes who are on the lower end of the scale(streetwalkers).

I would guess that a significant majority of people dislike or even actively loathe their work, but they do it anyway because they need to make a living and the alternatives are no better.

But a salesperson or call centre operator who went around trying to get sympathy for being driven crazy because their job required them to deal with disgusting customers would be laughed at. Even soldiers don’t get a lot of true sympathy once they have left the service.

Whorish Media

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".